>>510533211 (OP)
Because righties want convention, and art is an experimental process oriented around self-exploration.
Roll your eyes all you want, faggots. What I'm saying is the truth.
A huge part of right-wing ideology is self-denial. You see this in the concept of fascism, extreme religious zeal which elevates abnegation of the senses, mind over matter, and so forth. For this reason, righties either 1) deny the creative urges which validate the individual ego since this contradicts collective supremacy, 2) deny the concept of symbolic self-expression entirely because it's "effeminate" and counter to tradition, 3) reduce artistic expression to a purely economic extravagance, a "job" or "service" which, due to its self-reliance and emotional motivations, carries a stigma of "immaturity", "megalomania", "escapism" or "melodrama", self-debasing, maudlin, and ultimately reduceable to a pass-time instead of a profession.
This of course shows that the contemporary right is dominated by Jewish thought and values, which remarkably (and hilariously) evades their notice. Consider that the first complaint concerning the artist most righties make is that "art isn't a real job", which is intended to call into the question of the relevancy of any effort which isn't immediately economically productive, can't be quantitatively graduated, or isn't immediately and broadly market-viable.
If righties embraced art, the left would be dead by now. The left is obviously more self-absorbed, more permitting of the illusion of open-interpretation (so long as it tacitly invokes a feeling that subjectivity overrides objectivity), but every stroke of the pen or slash of a brush from a leftist is motivated first and foremost by the material world, and the powers within it. Righties are different -- they get stuff *outside* of themselves, and sincerely venerate it. This is called "beauty" and it's something that the right is in severe risk of losing the appreciation of.
